Academy
5. Reading and Verifying a Sourced Report
Navigate the finished report, trace each claim back to its inline source citation, and assess overall reliability.
When a Deep Research session completes, it produces a rich-text report that cross-checks findings from every provider you selected — web, academic, news, or specialized. Each factual claim in the report is paired with an inline source citation, so you can trace any statement back to the provider and reference that supplied it. This inline-citation structure is what separates a Deep Research report from a simple chat answer: the material stays verifiable even after you copy it into Documents, ChatPro, or a workflow. Your first task when reading a report is to understand this structure: scan for the cited references, note which providers contributed, and identify any sections that rely on a single source versus multiple corroborating sources.
To open a finished report, go to History. Every session is stored with its original question, the sources that were queried, the session status, and the full report. Reopen any session to reread the report at any time. Pay attention to the source list at the top: it tells you which providers were actually queried. If you selected only news sources, for example, don't expect academic-grade references — the report's reliability ceiling is set by the providers you chose. Comparing the source list against the inline citations also reveals whether all queried providers actually contributed findings or whether some returned nothing useful.
To verify a claim, follow the inline citation back to its origin. Ask three questions for each key statement:
- Which provider supplied it? Academic providers carry more weight for scientific claims; news providers are better for recent events.
- Is the claim corroborated? Look for the same fact cited from multiple providers. Cross-checked findings — where web, academic, and news sources agree — are the most reliable.
- Are there gaps? If an entire section has no citations, or cites only one provider, treat it as a lead rather than a confirmed fact.
This three-step check turns the report from a convenient summary into an auditable research artifact.
If a report section looks thin or a critical claim has only one source, don't start from scratch. Open the session and use Try Again with a more specific question — name the exact entities, time period, and angle. You can also switch to different or additional providers to fill the gap.
Match your verification effort to the source type. Academic providers typically surface peer-reviewed material; news providers surface journalism with editorial oversight; web providers cast the widest net but vary in authority. Knowing this hierarchy helps you prioritize which citations to double-check first.
Open History, pick a completed session, and read through the report. For three key claims, trace each inline citation back to its provider. Note whether the claim is corroborated by multiple sources or relies on a single one. If you find a weak section, hit Try Again with a tighter question to see how the new report improves.
A Deep Research report is only as strong as the sources behind it. To assess reliability: (1) check which providers were queried, (2) trace each key claim to its inline citation, (3) look for cross-provider corroboration, and (4) flag single-source or uncited sections as leads, not facts. If gaps remain, use Try Again with a refined question or broader source selection. Because citations travel with the text, the report stays verifiable wherever you reuse it — in Documents, ChatPro, or workflows.